Best Gaming Monitor

If you do, repeat. ^_^

Yeah I know, RMAs are a pain in the ass if there ever was one. However defective units are in the extreme minority, so odds are that you'll be set. If by some chance you do get another bad one, just keep at it til you find one that you're $900 satisfied with.
 
Chams said:
What can that LaCie electron19blueIV do at 1152x864. I'm talking about refresh rate.
Click to expand...

Well at 1920 x 1440 it does 73hz. At 1152x864 it probably does 100 or near, which is awesome.

EDIT: In the manual it lists these rates:

1024x768 @ 160hz
1280x1024 @ 101hz
1600x1200 @ 87hz

Those are the main resolutions so i only listed them. 1152x864 will do over 100hz.
 
Serriously, why get a 2450 for gaming? is there something you think your gonna miss on a 19 inch crt/lcd than with 24 inch wide screen?

that 800 bucks you spent on it, you can get the new Viewsonic 6ms responce 19inch LCD which is 416 bucks roughly, and then upgrade your video card, or ram, or proc, or mobo, or psu, or hell anything in your computer to make you game faster/better, new mouse keyboard? speakers..............list goes on and on, hell get a 100dollar mini fridge and fill it with balwz

800 dollars for a screen when avrage comp is about the same, is just far fetched, its all for eye candy.........true gamers go to lans.......i dont think someones gonna hawl a 24 inch lcd to a lan..........with people you dont know............who are willing to steal any of your parts........yeah............

not saying all lan goers are theifs just saying its a known happening :p


soulsaver_8229
 
I'd have to dissagree about the whole buying a cheap monitor theory.

This saying goes for video as just like an audio system.

Your internal components are as only as good as your output device.

Example: 2000$ THX audio system hooked up to Radio Shack speakers.
600$ video card hooked up to a monitor which does not support high resolutions.

If you don't got the cash and want to lift weights buy a trinitron 21" tube.
Max refresh is 2048 X 1536
Playable 85Hz refresh is 1600 X 1200.

Plus the triple apeture grill technology is nothing short of brilliant for color reproduction and contrast.
 
PSYKOMANTIS said:
I personally use 21" Trinitron monitors.
Click to expand...

QFT. This monitor rocks and you can get refurbs for <$150 refresh rates up to 16x12 @85hz, I love it but I wish it didn't weigh more than a 10 year old child.

~Adam
 
in my opinion its for people who can afford it, I have a 2405 and upgraded everything you listed. Im a graphic designer so the monitor has more purpose for me but yah widescreen adds a lot to gaming, its more immersive because of the wide perspective, i dont think i can ever go back to 19inches. And the 2405 has component and supports 1080p and those other dozen plugs in it. But in general widescreen wont work well unless the monitor is big, the 24 is pretty big.
 
I"m going to go out on a limb and say an LCD TV is now the best choice. I gave up my 21" CRT for a 27" 1280x720 screen, and now I just got rid of that one and upgraded to a 32" 1366x768. Awesome.

It's just enough resolution to kick ass, but not so high that you need a 7800 to keep the frame rate up. You havn't lived until you've gotten your computer screen 4-5 feet in front of you and still have it fill your vision. It's super eye strain relief. And the current TVs are MORE than fast enough for gaming.
 
ashmedai said:
I have one of them 21" Trinitrons sitting right next to my 2405FPW, and I say you're wrong. :D

When you've actually SEEN one, USED one, then tell me otherwise if you still think so. I'm sitting right in front of both. Until you are, quit scoffing at the one you can't afford.
Click to expand...

I'm not scoffing - just stating a fact.

I'm sitting in front of a Dell 21" Trinitron right now....which cost over $1200.00 new.

I've seen and used some of the latest Dell LCD's not the 2405FPW, which is a great monitor from all of the reviews, I wish I had one.

My point is, that for the MONEY an LCD can't touch a CRT, especially for gaming.

1. Currently you can purchased off lease Trinitron based 21" CRT's for less than $100.00 and buy new for less than $300. The other $700.00 - $900.00 can go for a high end video card and more RAM.
2. Most high end CRT's have multiple inputs - the Dell 21" I'm using right now accepts 2 VGA sources and switches between them with ease. Some even have DVI and VGA.
3. CRT's have higher refresh rates when running at the same resoultions as an LCD. That's why the first gen LCD's caused so much eyestrain, go look at an old laptop for 4 hours. Granted this gap has narrowed in later generations.
4. CRT's can run multiple refresh rates at the same resoultion. Fewer LCD have this ability, most are locked at one refresh rate for each resoultion.
5. CRT's don't 'ghost'... Instantanious response time.
6. CRT's don't have dead pixels when new or old... I did have a CRT lose one of its guns...red died on me. And they can have other problems.
7. CRT's do take up a lot of desk space... but 21" and greater LCDs do too... Just not as much depth.

So, for the money, for gaming - not artistic reproduction - not continous reading or web surfing - not even movie watching. A CRT is generally the better choice.

If you want to argue about personal preferance - just remember that it is impossible to prove a negative. If you like a LCD better than a CRT - I'll never convince you otherwise.

But the hard fact is - on a dollar for {inch viewable / resolution / refresh rate / response time} basis (which is what gaming is all about) the CRT will beat the LCD.

In the future this will change as the economies of scale become involved and the prices continue to drop because of all the LCD's being produced for the TV market.

But at the present time the CRT is the better value for gaming.

Basic Cost vs Value Analysis 101

And I think that it's great that you can afford a really high end monitor. I can too, but I choose not to buy one because the value doesn't justify the cost for me. And remember that this thread is going to be looked at by alot of people that are wanting to purchase new hardware and are going to feel that their systems don't measure up because of some of these comments.

Bottom line is buy what you can afford that will make you happy.

If an $800 - 900.00 dollar monitor makes you happy - wonderful!!!

I'll put my extra $700.00 to good use in buying other parts that'll make me even more satisfied with my system.

 
13x7? That's kinda a low res for a 32 incher, at least it would be for me. I run 16by12 on a 21 incher. Kinda a stark contrast.

~Adam
 
i think the eyestrain alone would have me leaning toward lcd.
whats QFT
 
foofighter06 said:
Dell UltraSharp 2001FP or Nec 2111SB(I own 2 and they are awesome for gaming).
Click to expand...

I own both too (well, I did own a 2001fp :p). 2001 turns blacks into gray, one resolution, small text/borked web pages, blinding brightness, silk screen effect. Spinach, IMO but I'm glad you like yours. :D I love the NEC.

BTW, don't we have these dumb threads like once a week. A week from now someone will post the same question, and the next week, and the next week. Haven't we had this discussion before? Thread posters, why can you not see that the LCD/CRT debate has raged on for months? Duhhhhhhhh.
 
Trinitrons kick ass, don't get me wrong, and you can get them pretty cheap too. Got mine for $200ish a few years back when I had less money to throw around. But cheap != best, and since I have these two sitting here, I can confidently say that the 2405FPW is significantly better. I believe that it's the best right now...not the biggest again, but anything larger you have to start sacrificing a bit here and there, and it's no longer quite perfect.

Incidentally my Trinitron is also Dell badged (the P1130 I think?), not that I bought it through them.

In reply to davez82, I can't say as my Trinitron had much eyestrain going on once I turned the refresh up to 85-100. So that's not a problem, at least not as far as I can tell. It's an excellent budget solution.

But again, it's not the best.
 
rodsfree said:
I'm not scoffing - just stating a fact.

I'm sitting in front of a Dell 21" Trinitron right now....which cost over $1200.00 new.

I've seen and used some of the latest Dell LCD's not the 2405FPW, which is a great monitor from all of the reviews, I wish I had one.

My point is, that for the MONEY an LCD can't touch a CRT, especially for gaming.

1. Currently you can purchased off lease Trinitron based 21" CRT's for less than $100.00 and buy new for less than $300. The other $700.00 - $900.00 can go for a high end video card and more RAM.
2. Most high end CRT's have multiple inputs - the Dell 21" I'm using right now accepts 2 VGA sources and switches between them with ease. Some even have DVI and VGA.
3. CRT's have higher refresh rates when running at the same resoultions as an LCD. That's why the first gen LCD's caused so much eyestrain, go look at an old laptop for 4 hours. Granted this gap has narrowed in later generations.
4. CRT's can run multiple refresh rates at the same resoultion. Fewer LCD have this ability, most are locked at one refresh rate for each resoultion.
5. CRT's don't 'ghost'... Instantanious response time.
6. CRT's don't have dead pixels when new or old... I did have a CRT lose one of its guns...red died on me. And they can have other problems.
7. CRT's do take up a lot of desk space... but 21" and greater LCDs do too... Just not as much depth.

So, for the money, for gaming - not artistic reproduction - not continous reading or web surfing - not even movie watching. A CRT is generally the better choice.

If you want to argue about personal preferance - just remember that it is impossible to prove a negative. If you like a LCD better than a CRT - I'll never convince you otherwise.

But the hard fact is - on a dollar for {inch viewable / resolution / refresh rate / response time} basis (which is what gaming is all about) the CRT will beat the LCD.

In the future this will change as the economies of scale become involved and the prices continue to drop because of all the LCD's being produced for the TV market.

But at the present time the CRT is the better value for gaming.

Basic Cost vs Value Analysis 101

And I think that it's great that you can afford a really high end monitor. I can too, but I choose not to buy one because the value doesn't justify the cost for me. And remember that this thread is going to be looked at by alot of people that are wanting to purchase new hardware and are going to feel that their systems don't measure up because of some of these comments.

Bottom line is buy what you can afford that will make you happy.

If an $800 - 900.00 dollar monitor makes you happy - wonderful!!!

I'll put my extra $700.00 to good use in buying other parts that'll make me even more satisfied with my system.

Click to expand...


Well spoken post. Much of everything he has said is true.

-J.
 
Advil said:
I"m going to go out on a limb and say an LCD TV is now the best choice. I gave up my 21" CRT for a 27" 1280x720 screen . . .
It's just enough resolution to kick ass, but not so high that you need a 7800 to keep the frame rate up. You havn't lived until you've gotten your computer screen 4-5 feet in front of you and still have it fill your vision. It's super eye strain relief. And the current TVs are MORE than fast enough for gaming.
Click to expand...

Im gonna agree with Advil. I got the 27" widescreen LCD TV at 1280X720 as well and everything looks awesome! Going strictly with a "Gaming" requirement, sitting back on my couch with wireless keyboard is the only way to go. And I have never been unsatisfied with 1280X720 resolution quality.
 
As far as the "best" goes, I'd go with a Sony GDM-FW900 24" widescreen CRT or one of the OEM variants (Sun, SGI, HP). I've got the bland beige HP version. They went for $2000-2500 when new. Now they're no longer made, but I was able to pick up a 3yo one on eBay for $478 shipped. The picture's just f'n gorgeous, and the res goes all the way up to 2304x1440.
Of course, it's also huge, heavy (~93lbs), and sucks down quite a lot of juice.
 
I thought about a widescreen CRT...but for one thing, a 24" CRT is smaller than a 24" LCD (well, it's much much bigger...but the picture's smaller ;) ). Kinda went downhill from there.

Still has to be pretty sweet.
 
ashmedai said:
I thought about a widescreen CRT...but for one thing, a 24" CRT is smaller than a 24" LCD (well, it's much much bigger...but the picture's smaller ;) ). Kinda went downhill from there.
Click to expand...
True, it's 22.5" viewable. OTOH, the CRT can run higher res. At 2304x1440 pixels get a bit blurry (if you divide the width by the dot pitch you get something around 2000...) and they're also quite small. The blending makes for a nice "free" AA effect, and combined with the pixel size makes for a very smooth looking picture without having to turn AA on. I generally run 1920x1200 on the desktop. It's roughly equivalent to 1600x1200 on a high end 21" Trinitron in terms of pixel size and clarity.
 
RePoMaN said:
Hey guys,

I'm getting older and slower and am building a system that will give me maximum advantage in gaming.

What is the best monitor for gaming given i dont want to spend more than $1000 dollars?

Thanks
Click to expand...


Bah, LCD monitors > CRT monitors. Just get a nice LCD... I personally got a 1280x1024 LCD so that my performance wouldnt be raped by having to use a high resolution. After I got use to my LCD, I would NEVER go back to a CRT. A CRT offers me nothing over my LCD other than 40 pounds.
 
Guys... Guys...

I tell you for $335 you can have the following 19" LCD.

HYUNDAI L90D+ Silver 19" 8ms LCD Monitor Built in Speakers - Retail


This thing is SLICK!!! No dead pixels or ghosting.

You can always find it at NewEgg.
 
zandor said:
As far as the "best" goes, I'd go with a Sony GDM-FW900 24" widescreen CRT or one of the OEM variants (Sun, SGI, HP). I've got the bland beige HP version. They went for $2000-2500 when new. Now they're no longer made, but I was able to pick up a 3yo one on eBay for $478 shipped. The picture's just f'n gorgeous, and the res goes all the way up to 2304x1440.
Of course, it's also huge, heavy (~93lbs), and sucks down quite a lot of juice.
Click to expand...

Also heats up the room considerably. But I consider it a freebie for winter time. :)

I have to admit though-- 93 lbs is nothing. Maybe I'm just used to it.

-J.
 
davez82 said:
i think the eyestrain alone would have me leaning toward lcd.
whats QFT
Click to expand...

stands for "quoted for truth"...

I play at 1280x1024 for gaming. I have a samsung 19" crt which I can't remember the model.. It's the nicest thing I've ever bought for my gaming experience. Bright, vibrant colors, crisp looking images. Then again, upgrading from 2x1024 crap monitors is a nice step up. It cost me < $200 brand new (at a retail store no less) and it does its job beautifully.

Im sure 1600x1200 + is nice as well, but for what I spent, you simply can not beat it. Mmm 1280x1024 6xaa and 16xaf *drools*

Now if I had a bottomless well of cash, I'd most likely buy a plasma screen tv, wall mount it next to a very comfortable area of my home, plug my PC into it, and play guldwars allday. But thats just me.
 
Pirate Pete said:
stands for "quoted for truth"...

I play at 1280x1024 for gaming. I have a samsung 19" crt which I can't remember the model.. It's the nicest thing I've ever bought for my gaming experience. Bright, vibrant colors, crisp looking images. Then again, upgrading from 2x1024 crap monitors is a nice step up. It cost me < $200 brand new (at a retail store no less) and it does its job beautifully.

Im sure 1600x1200 + is nice as well, but for what I spent, you simply can not beat it. Mmm 1280x1024 6xaa and 16xaf *drools*

Now if I had a bottomless well of cash, I'd most likely buy a plasma screen tv, wall mount it next to a very comfortable area of my home, plug my PC into it, and play guldwars allday. But thats just me.
Click to expand...


Off topic... I hate plasma TVs. :D
 
Tengis said:
Off topic... I hate plasma TVs. :D
Click to expand...

Off topic but ain't it a beeatch when you can't afford the best HD technology. Ya, BTW, I have a Panny th-50px50u plasma which destroys CRTs, LCDs, DiLA, DLPs in picture quality. :D
 
Well i have had many crts (2 Trinitron 21", one i still have) and I own the 2001fp, a 2005fpw and since they came out the 2405fpw. This is a no brainer for many reasons.

1. The heat generated by CRT's is immense.
2. The footprint of CRT's is immense.
3. I personally dont like a RAY GUN shooting at me all day long.
4. The eye strain from crt's is present even with higher refresh times and resolutions.
5. The electrical consumption is 2-4x more than a LCD.

These are but a few. The bad side of LCD's is native resolutions, that many video cards can not keep up with in todays top game titles. Being forced out of native can incur ghosting/streaking. with this said, if your a gamer that only games 4 hours or less a day and can get a premium video card to put out the top end resolution of say the 2405 (1920x200 is native) then you will have a new outlook on gamin and space saved in your pc area. All this comes in a svelt package that is one of the best buys to come along on LCD's in a very long time. Hope you find what you looking for CRT's where very good to me for very long time and still useful for many. Good LUCK!
 
Well if it is of any help, I have used a 19 inch NEC FP955 (max res 1920x1440) for quite a few years now and I have just recently purchased the Dell 2005 and I can say that game are more enjoyable on a 20 inch widescreen monitor but I do notice a difference in gaming. I typically play quake 3 at 640x480 (if you're a quake fanatic you would know why). When I want to enjoy winning flawlessly I will play on the CRT. Don't get me wrong though, I love my 2005FPW :)
 
I have a Dell trinitron and it's performed well. But I agree I wouldn't trust Dell. I just had no other choice at the time.

~Adam
 
If you're not a hardcore/competitive gamer, and have the money, get an LCD. I am.
 
For about a year, I owned the 19" HP p930 CRT. I liked it, it could support a high refresh rates, but when I wasn't gaming and had it at native resolution (1280x1024 @ 85Hz), it started to hurt my eyes. I heard great things about Dell's 2001FP and 2005FPW. It was hard for me to go to LCD because I heard everything about how bad they were for gaming and how I should just stick with the CRT. (I've also played CS at 800x600 @ 120Hz so that was going to change) Dell had a deal for the 2005FPW @ $400 and I had to give in. I was wondering if it was going to be good for gaming. I was worried about it until I got it. Now that I have it, I can't believe I didn't purchase it before. I haven't had any problems. I haven't seen any ghosting and my games look amazing on it. (Just turn the bightness to 50% and the gamma to 0.8 and the picture looks amazing) I've been extremely happy with my purchase and my eyes thank me. If I think the 2005FPW is amazing, I would think the 2405FPW would be even better. I hope this helped you a little with your decision and good luck with your purchase.
 
no one is talking about response time... this is a gaming monitor thread isnt it? shouldn't response time go as the highest priority? LCDs lose there right?
 
I've always been a die hard CRT fan boy.. until 2 weeks ago , I bought a Dell 2001FP on sale and cannot believe how good it really is , I play a lot of games and this thing looks fantastic , When comparing it to my Sony G520P 21" CRT side by side (clone mode on a 6800GT) the CRT doesnt look so hot anymore, Dont get me wrong it has a great picture (only 1 year old) but the LCD has the edge in brightness,color vibrancy and especially overall detail / sharpness,for example you can literaly make out the pixels & detail that make up the quick launch icons on the taskbar without a hint of blur (1600x1200) and text clarity is just insane.

I was worried about motion blur but it simply isnt an issue with the 2001FP at ALL and I was really happy about that, The 2001FP & 2005FPW are based on the Philips S-IPS panel wich currently have the most accurate color reproduction and fastest response times (12ms) so they're great as gaming monitors, the 2405FPW is great as well but is based on the PVA Samsung panel wich has slightly slower response and not as accurate color BUT is able to produce deeper blacks than S-IPS based lcd's, wich happens to be my only minor gripe with the 2001FP, games like Doom 3 appear with slightly brighter blacks on the LCD while the CRT is able to maintain dark black.

Anyhow I still have both monitors running side by side checking out the differances as I go but from what ive seen so far I seriously think ill be getting rid of the CRT (dont have any real use for a dual monitor setup)

Just my 2 cents...

http://img126.echo.cx/img126/5425/song520pdell2001fp6zk.jpg not a very good picture at all (my digicam sucks) both monitors have much better image quality in person.
 
I have been using my VP201b for almost a year now and as far as LCDs go... it's sweet. The only thing that bugs me is that in some games on lower resolutions (below 1024x768) the text becomes a bit blurry. But I suppose if that is the only thing to complain about (and a dead pixel on the left most middle side) it isn't bad.

Then again the VP201 isn't cheap.
 
I have had a Sony Multiscan G500 21" CRT for almost six years now. The BNC connectors really help and it's a pain in the ass looking at anything that isn't at least 20" or isn't a Diamondtron/Trinitron.

Having said that, I'm really looking into gettinga Dell 2001FP. Reasons:

This Sony weighs about seventy-five pounds.

You can see the awesome burn-in from about three of the wallpapers I've used when it's turned off.

Actually turning the monitor on and warming it up takes at least three minutes. That's three minutes from when I push the button and when I see a fully clear image. I thought this was a defect of this model but the same condition was found on a replacement.

I love the Sony. People at first always complain it's "too bright" and that things are "too small". This thing hits 2048x1536 pretty easily, but I back it off to 16x12 so I can actually read.

I think if you want a monitor that will stay in the same place 340 days a year, a big 21" CRT is OK. If you have the desk space and don't want to move it, save some money and get a big ol' CRT.

However, if you LAN alot or have a limited amount of space, a Dell 2001FP is a great monitor. My friend has had his for about six months when he bought his XPS (that's a LOUD PC). He really likes it and is considering getting a second to use as a TV.

Most people will agree that if the Dell 20" isn't the best gaming LCD, it's pretty close, and it's a good value. However, I have to give the edge to a massive CRT. I just think they look better. Honestly, in 90% of what you do, you probably won't be able to tell a difference.

Try not to listen to these crazy people peddling CRT or LCD. If you have a lot of room and don't mind lifting an 80-pound box (I really don't), get a CRT. If you know you'll be moving your monitor or have a small amount of room, get an LCD.

Whetever you do, don't let ANYONE convince you to get anything less than a 20" monitor.

You will be sorry.
 
PSYKOMANTIS said:
I personally use 21" Trinitron monitors.

Sure they weigh 70 lbs and take up a ton of desk space.
For color reproduction, contrast, resolution, refresh, and sheer luminance you can't beat a high end CRT...

...yet ;)
Click to expand...

So you also have a 2405FPW that is right next to it that you are comparing it to?
 
hikeskool said:
Actually turning the monitor on and warming it up takes at least three minutes. That's three minutes from when I push the button and when I see a fully clear image. I thought this was a defect of this model but the same condition was found on a replacement.
Click to expand...

Doesnt seem right but I guess after 6 years you're used to it lol , It takes about 6 seconds on my Sony G520P to show an image from when I power up my PC (just misses the Bios POST messages) and by the time the desktop is loaded the image looks fine.

Thats another plus on the 2001FP (and im sure most other LCD's) when I power up the PC it shows the Dell Ultrasharp logo for about 3-4 seconds then the image appears instantly ,fully bright and vibrant as if its been on all day.
 
People who talk about LCD's right now and say "LCD's suck" (or along the lines of that) haven't looked at LCD's since either 2002-2003 or before. LCD's now are capable of the same resolutions as CRT's and NON GHOSTING game/movie play. They are capable of the EXACT things as CRT's only they look much sexier. That's the damn truth.
 
Big Fat Duck said:
no one is talking about response time... this is a gaming monitor thread isnt it? shouldn't response time go as the highest priority? LCDs lose there right?
Click to expand...

actually lcd's have pretty good ghosting nowadays, i really dont think its an issue unless you have 25ms up.

Color seems fine for me too, i know the early days when lcd's first came out they were horrible but I think the colors are a lot better on newer models. Take a look at the apple 30" , sure its the best of its kind but it does exist.

But I have to agree with hikeschool, its what you can tolerate, i personally couldnt fit my 19 inch crt on my desk anymore, i was sitting like 3 inches from it cause the back was too big and it was as far back as it could go. Everytime it started it made this degaussing noise that was really really scary, felt like it was gonna shock me or something, might as well sit in front of my tube tele if im gonna do that.

Ever since i switched to the 2405 my desk looks awesome, so much cleaner, quieter, just more relaxing, its like having a sexy babe laying on my desk, and me staring at her all day, sad... As a hobby i would say my pc is my hobby, fixing it up etc.. so to me looks, and performance both matter, and the 2405 has them both, yes its expensive, but i can afford it and so i bought it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top